[B-Greek] Fwd: The Language of the NT

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Jan 14 06:37:31 EST 2008


Over the weekend I received the following message from Professor Lars  
Rydbeck, Professor of  NT Philology, University of Lund, whohad taken  
note of this recent topic of BG discussion. I have reformatted the  
translation of his RGG article, since we do not permit appending  
documents to BG messages.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Lars Rydbeck <lars at rydbeck.se>
> Date: January 12, 2008 9:25:16 AM EST
> To: cwconrad2 at mac.com
> Subject: The Language of the NT
>
> Chaire,
>
> For some time I have been a subscriber to the B-Greek site.  
> Unfortunately
> there are too many items every day for me to find time to read them.
> I have noticed a discussion going on about the nature of NT Greek  
> and would
> like like to bring to your attention a couple of books and articles  
> that I
> find useful.
>
> Adrados,Geschichte der griechischen Sprache von den Anfängen bis  
> heute.
> Originally in Spanish.Very good
>
> Horrocks, Greek. A History of the Language and its Speakers.Good on  
> the
> pronounciation of Greek during different periods. Not so good on NT  
> Greek.
> Follows the old Deissmannian-Moultonian line.
>
> Wifstrand, Epochs and Styles. Mohr-Siebeck, WUNT 179. Many chapters  
> on the
> history of late antique Greek and specifically on NT Greek. Review  
> in RBL:

http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5471&CodePage=5471
or
http://tinyurl.com/29ulu7
>
> Rydbeck, article on Die Sprache des NT in Religion in Geschichte und
> Gegenwart 4th ed. sub voce Bibel. Since a few months also in English  
> in the
> Brill translation of RGG 4 (RPP vol ii The Language of the NT, sub  
> voce
> Bible (article follows message below).
>
> Alexander, Loveday, Acts in its Ancient Literay Context. Particularly
> Chapter 10:Septuaginta, Fachprosa, Imitatio: Albert Wifstrand and the
> Language of Luke-Acts.
>
> If the references are not full enough please get back to me.
>
> Yours
> Lars Rydbeck
> Prof. of NT Philology at the Univ. of Lund (Sweden) (Ret)

=======
Rydbeck, Eng. tr. of RGG4 ...:

3. The language of the New Testament. Scholars have  taken two main  
positions in their evaluation of the language of the NT. Either this  
is seen as part of the development of written Greek from Alexander the  
Great  until the 1st century ce (Deissmann, Moulton, Wif-  strand,  
Rydbeck, Horsley), or else the language of the  NT is unique and must  
be considered an independent  phenomenon outside and alongside the  
usual develop-  ment of the Greek language (Wellhausen: a  
semiticizing  Greek; Turner: a special form of Christian Greek, an  ad  
hoc language inspired by the Holy Spirit).

  In order to speak appropriately of the language of the  NT, one must  
first say something about the 3000-year  history of Greek. In this  
history, the so-called classical  Attic prose (c. 400 bce) is a late  
phenomenon; but it was  this uniform Attic that was adopted by the  
rising super-  power to the north, Macedonia, as the diplomatic lan-   
guage it employed in its dealings with the Greeks. This  universal  
Attic was spread throughout the entire Near  East thanks to the  
conquering expeditions of Alexander  the Great, and Attic became the  
common language of  the Hellenistic world, known as ἡ κοινὴ  
διάλεκτος/hH KOINH DIALEKTOS (or KOINH for short); this  
expression is found in a text by the Epicurean philosopher Colotes   
(born c. 325 bce). – From 50 bce, the epoch of Hellenistic Greek was  
increasingly replaced by the reaction of the pseudo-classical movement  
in language and style, which demanded a return to the authors of the  
classical period (“classicism” or “Atticism”). The consequence  
of this classicistic linguistic reaction was that most of the  
literature of the last three centuries bce was forgotten, and has not  
survived. Thanks to the interest of Christians in the LXX, however,  
the most extensive text of the Hellenistic age was preserved. Together  
with the historians Polybius and Diodorus, the LXX is the most  
important monument of literary KOINH, just as the NT is without doubt  
the most important example of a literary
KOINH from the 1st century ce which is as yet untouched by classicism.  
 From the 2nd century ce onward, Atticism dominates both the pagan  
linguistic development and the Greek of the first Christian theologians.

Neither the Hellenistic literary KOINH  nor the  artificial   
Atticistic language of the imperial age is a monolithic  entity. Both  
contain a variety of levels of literary KOINH or  of high Atticistic  
prose, and in many cases we see the per-  sonal variants of individual  
writers. The NT was writ-  ten before the Atticizing linguistic  
reaction had won the  day on a broad front. Atticism must be  
understood as a  reactionary linguistic and cultural movement; the  
Hellenistic KOINH was born of a conservative linguistic and  cultural  
climate which did indeed build on Attic prose,  but allowed the  
individual writer a relatively wide free-  dom of movement. This is  
the explanation of the various examples of literary KOINH which have  
left their mark  on NT Greek: the various translation strata of the  
LXX  Greek, and the representatives of the so-called intertestamental  
literature, especially 1 → Enoch and the → Testaments of the Twelve  
Patriarchs, which influence the  Greek in James, the letters of Peter,  
and Hebrew.

Many influences flow into the NT. The Greek of the  LXX is  
particularly important for the linguistic forms  of the synoptics and  
Acts; for these writers, the LXX  is the classic edifying text which  
they quote and freely  integrate into their literary composition. It  
is here that  the root of Luke’s classicism lies, not in the pagan  
classicism of the imperial age (cf. Wifstrand, Lukas, arguing against  
Norden). At least five linguistic styles can be  distinguished in the  
NT, which have the same basis in  relation to phonology, flections,  
syntax (with the exception of passages which imitate the translation- 
syntax of  the LXX), the formation of words, and the meanings  of  
words: viz., the customary literary KOINH which goes  back to the  
Hellenistic period. Group I: Paul. Group II:  John (and the letters of  
John). In linguistic and stylistic  terms, Paul and John are two  
unique individuals. Group  III: the synoptic Gospels and Acts, a group  
characterized by a septuagintal atmosphere and general semitic   
influences on phraseology and the sequence of words.  Group IV:  
Revelation, where the author is a stylist with  a mind of his own, who  
deliberately deviates from normal Greek grammar. Group V: the Catholic  
Epistles,  Hebrews, and the Pastoral Letters. This group is distinct   
from the other groups in two ways (cf. Wifstrand, Stylistic Problems):  
first, their authors favor the customary  Greek style of descriptive,  
analytical, and paraenetic  prose, rather than the style employed in  
the sayings of  Jesus in the Gospels or in the appeals and  
argumentation of Paul. Secondly, the style of the catholic epistles   
is strikingly similar to that of later Christian literature.  The  
apostolic and later fathers of the church write in a  style which  
recalls that of James and the letters of Peter.  The roots of this  
linguistic style lie in the edifying language of the hellenized  
diaspora synagogue; this is why  one could call the Greek of the  
synagogue a biblical or  Jewish Greek, although one must be aware that  
the biblical-Jewish element is restricted exclusively to phraseology  
and sentence-construction, whereas the phonology,  standard forms,  
normal syntax, formation of words, and  most of the meanings of words  
follow standard KOINH.  During the imperial age, the semitic influence  
on the  language of Christian theologians gradually disappeared.  The  
influence of the LXX was restricted to allusions and  direct  
quotations. Nevertheless, the basic linguistic tone  of the earliest  
church never fell completely silent.

Standard grammar: F. Blass, A. Debrunner, & F. Rehkopf,  Grammatik des  
neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 1896, 171990 //  G.B. Winer, Grammatik  
des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, 1822  // J.H. Moulton, Einleitung  
in die Sprache des Neuen Testaments,  1911 // J. Wellhausen,  
Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, 1911  // E. Norden, Die  
antike Kunstprosa, 2 vols., 1915, 1918 // U. von  Wilamowitz- 
Moellendorff, Geschichte der griechischen Sprache,  1928 // A.  
Wifstrand, Epochs and Styles, 2005 (which includes,  on pp. 17–27 and  
46–58, the two papers referred to in the text) //  N. Turner, Syntax  
(published as vol. III of J.H. Moulton,  A Grammar of New Testament  
Greek), 1965 // L. Rydbeck, Fachprosa, vermeintliche Volkssprache und  
Neues Testament, 1967 //  G.H.R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating  
Early Christianity,  V: Linguistic Essays, 1989 // T. Engberg-Pedersen  
et al., eds.,  Sproget i hellenismen, 1995 (including J. Blomqvist,  
“Diglossifenomen i den hellenistiska grekiskan,” and L. Rydbeck,  
“Det  nytestamentliga språkets inplacering i den samtida  
språkmiljön”) // G. Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and  
its  Speakers, 1997. Lars Rydbeck
========


More information about the B-Greek mailing list